Crowley is not the ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Crowley is not the author of Liber AL  

Page 25 / 25
  RSS

Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 319
23/03/2009 10:36 pm  

Camlion wrote: "How would you define the term "Magister Templi"?"

alrah wrote: "...to do as the HGA wills. To do this and no other."

If that's the case, then any 5=6 would qualify. Technically the oath is to treat every phenomenon as a direct dealing of God with the soul; but to me, it also signifies an earth-shattering, life-changing switch of perception.

That said, I'd never presume to judge another's claim. If one claims anything, fine. I just say let him stand by it and his work in the end will be the final judge.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
23/03/2009 10:59 pm  

Sorry but the above doesn't make any sense. The HGA is abandoned at the crossing of the abyss.


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1426
23/03/2009 11:28 pm  

One student asked the Buddha
What is the meaning of Life?
The Buddha lifted a flower
the student dissected it found its properties
ate it and lived another day.
Another student saw and understood the mystery and the beauty.

One night under the full moon when the Buddha was teaching, a student asked is there God ? The Buddha seeing that the student believed said yes. On another night a student asked so there is no such thing as God? The Buddha seeing that the student believed said No. And on even another night a student asked is there a God or not? The Buddha seeing that the student believed said I don't know.


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1426
24/03/2009 12:17 am  

correction
On another night a student asked so there is no such thing as God? The Buddha seeing that the student believed said (yes No such thing as God.)

Anyone know if the wave–particle duality has been solved yet?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2195
25/03/2009 3:29 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
I have little interest in distinguishing [...]

Well, distinguishing between various practices and various beings is the very topic in question, is it not?

If you'd rather just sweep the whole topic aside and say, "well, you simply have to have experience," then...ok, but that's a pretty convenient evasion of the topic.

It goes back to Erwin's point very early on -- actual experience gives you an ability to understand a subject and explain it clearly to others. If your "experience" is something you can't speak about, then you can't use that experience to make claims.

There are no "other beings" beyond the company of Stars that are mankind, IMO, which is not to say that the true scope such Stars is as limited as Erwin would have it. That true scope may, if properly understood, include "others," for all practical and functional purposes.

So are you saying you're an "a-goblinist," then? Me too. But then again, I'm also an "a-Santa-Clausist" and an "a-Bigfootist."

I don't really understand how Erwin is "limit[ing]" anything. Acknowledging reality and refusing to accept things that are not real is exactly the opposite of limiting.

Skepticism is usually the sign of an open mind; faith is the sign of a closed mind. Certainly, if there were ever any actual evidence, I would believe in the existence of these "goblins" (just like I would believe in Santa or Bigfoot if there were ever any actual evidence of them).

Textual evidence taken from such books is not "overwhelming," it is incomplete in that it lacks sufficient personal experience with that system in its entirety to be well informed.

But the very thing we're discussing is what Crowley actually wrote. The only experience you need to discuss this topic is the experience of reading Crowley's books.

The system, as he presented it to the world, does not seem to involve contact with external entities -- in fact, Crowley appears to go out of his way to specify that the system is about getting in touch with a part of the self.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/03/2009 6:22 am  
"Los" wrote:
If you'd rather just sweep the whole topic aside and say, "well, you simply have to have experience," then...ok, but that's a pretty convenient evasion of the topic.

It goes back to Erwin's point very early on -- actual experience gives you an ability to understand a subject and explain it clearly to others. If your "experience" is something you can't speak about, then you can't use that experience to make claims.

I disagree. Most occultists I know become guarded and when pressed on the details of their HGA and for good reason - their Angel is warning them to keep their mouth shut or suffer the dire consequences. If the KCHGA is authentic it will more likely manifest as the person saying what something is not rather than what it is.

"Los" wrote:
I don't really understand how Erwin is "limit[ing]" anything. Acknowledging reality and refusing to accept things that are not real is exactly the opposite of limiting.

Skepticism is usually the sign of an open mind; faith is the sign of a closed mind. Certainly, if there were ever any actual evidence, I would believe in the existence of these "goblins" (just like I would believe in Santa or Bigfoot if there were ever any actual evidence of them).

We should all be radical skeptics and apply the scientific method in our research. But it is not enough to have amazing visions and experiences. Somewhere in MWT Crowley rants against mediums, comparing their minds to a smelly sewer, because they are open to all impressions without critically questioning them. Read his warnings in Notes to an Astral Atlas or the following quote:

This testing of the spirits is the most important branch of the whole tree of Magick. Without it, one is lost in the jungle of delusion. Every spirit, up to God himself, is ready to deceive you if possible, to make himself out more important than he is; in short to lay in wait for your soul in 333 [the number of Choronzon] separate ways. Remember that after all the highest of all the Gods is only the Magus, Mayan, the greatest of all the devils.

(p. 244, Book 4)

And you can be sure that the same rules apply to the human realm. Do not be deceived by claims of attainment or authority but question the evidence.

"Los" wrote:
But the very thing we're discussing is what Crowley actually wrote. The only experience you need to discuss this topic is the experience of reading Crowley's books.

Wow, I could not disagree more! Magick is about action, will, daring. It will change you radically. Do the rituals left behind by Crowley and life experience will confirm if he was telling the truth or not.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/03/2009 1:04 pm  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
Camlion wrote: "How would you define the term "Magister Templi"?"

alrah wrote: "...to do as the HGA wills. To do this and no other."

If that's the case, then any 5=6 would qualify. Technically the oath is to treat every phenomenon as a direct dealing of God with the soul; but to me, it also signifies an earth-shattering, life-changing switch of perception.

That said, I'd never presume to judge another's claim. If one claims anything, fine. I just say let him stand by it and his work in the end will be the final judge.

I don't see how you think any 5=6 would qualify? The perception of a 5=6 is radically different, but this is not to say that he come back from the formless abodes and immediately knows his True Will. More usually a 5=6 tends to justify each whim and whimsey of his ordinary conscious will and false self image as not mattering a damn since there is no difference and no self back there in the formless abodes. It's a glorious and rather silly period in the magickians life, and much of the woo wooism of magick comes from the 5=6's. What fun is to be had under the light of the noon day sun! 😀

The abyss is a series of challenges to all of the former silliness and ego attachments and forces the change of perspective - different for everyone of us depending how deluded we are and how far our self image and conscious will diverges from that of the HGA. It's a serious business when you think of how many things most people are attached to, and how this effects their decision making.

And the oath is just the formal opening act of the abyss. It doesn't signify any change of perception.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/03/2009 2:07 pm  
"Erwin" wrote:
despite the fact that it may not have been "so cut and dried for him personally", the magical and mystical system he presented to the world does not deal with contacting discarnate intelligences.

Sorry to dredge up this point so late in the debate. I think the rather crucial point that's being missed here (or so it seems) is that he presented the system in a way that only dealt with veryfiable facts. He didn't say openly that Magick involved contacting praeter-human entities because he wanted people to arrive at their own decisions about such things and not go into it with any assumptions. This was Crowleys attempt to make a scientific system, and also to attract scientifically minded people who would be put off by claims of contacts with angels.

But he wasn't afraid to say to someone who was already invovled in the system

Magick is getting into communication with individuals who exist on a higher plane than ours. Mysticism is the raising of oneself to their level.

(letter to Germer 1947 quoted in intro to Liber Aba - which considering the year it was written could be taken as Crowleys final word on the subject).


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/03/2009 5:08 pm  

Good morning, Los -93

"Los" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
I have little interest in distinguishing [...]

Well, distinguishing between various practices and various beings is the very topic in question, is it not?

"Various practices" have been a sub-topic, yes, which is one reason that this thread has interested me so little. I already knew the difference in practices, as distinguished by major category, as did most of the readership of this website. Whether internally expressed in practices of mysticism, such as some types of yoga, or externally expressed in practices a magick, such as some types of ritual, the results from a Thelemic perspective are the same, Union. Union with Self, alignment of behavior with true Will, and so on. The Thelemic perspective is the only one that interests me, and I am not confounded by this difference in category of the practices.

"Various beings" have also been a sub-topic, deliberately selected by Erwin as it is most vulnerable to scientific skepticism. There are minority schools of Thelema that preoccupy themselves with various matters such as discarnate intelligence or English Qabalah, as examples. These pursuits are legitimate, IMO, as they were instigated by Liber AL and were encouraged by Aleister Crowley. Personally, I find these to be of only supplemental interest and value, but they are, indeed, encompassed by own preferred 'Enlightened Solipsism' - which itself is also instigated by Liber AL and encouraged any Aleister Crowley.

"Los" wrote:
If you'd rather just sweep the whole topic aside and say, "well, you simply have to have experience," then...ok, but that's a pretty convenient evasion of the topic.

The basis of scientific method, as Crowley intended and employed it, is experiment. Since the subject of these particular experiments is the Self, experience is necessary to proceed by scientific method. Thus, to demand experience is not to "sweep the whole topic aside," it is to demand a high degree of personal experience, as required by scientific method in this application. In the absence of personal experience in this field, we have only empty theory, which happens to be a specialty of Erwin's, but does not interest me at all. So, yes, I dismiss it.

"Los" wrote:
It goes back to Erwin's point very early on -- actual experience gives you an ability to understand a subject and explain it clearly to others. If your "experience" is something you can't speak about, then you can't use that experience to make claims.

No, dear boy, COMMON EXPERIENCE is what gives us an ability to understand this particular subject and explain it clearly to others. I cannot explain this sort of thing to you by virtue of my own experience until you have acquired common experience for yourself. Erwin's "point very early on" was in error and was as incomplete as is his personal experience in this field.

"Los" wrote:

There are no "other beings" beyond the company of Stars that are mankind, IMO, which is not to say that the true scope such Stars is as limited as Erwin would have it. That true scope may, if properly understood, include "others," for all practical and functional purposes.

So are you saying you're an "a-goblinist," then? Me too. But then again, I'm also an "a-Santa-Clausist" and an "a-Bigfootist."

I am an agnostic when it comes to aliens, for example, yes. However, I consider it perfectly feasible that what I call "I" may be a part of a greater whole of which "I" function independently, for all practical purposes, and vise versa. I also extend that potential greater scope as being inherent to other Stars such as myself. It is by the seemingly inevitable misinterpretation of observed facts that I presume the existence of "higher (or lower) external powers" is postulated. I consider this to be a misunderstanding of the concept called "external."

"Los" wrote:
I don't really understand how Erwin is "limit[ing]" anything. Acknowledging reality and refusing to accept things that are not real is exactly the opposite of limiting.

I would postulate, based upon his writings, that there is much more to Erwin than Erwin knows or understands yet. Therefore, his definition of 'reality' is deficient, a deficiency that can only be compensated for by greater personal experience of himself and his true scope.

"Los" wrote:
Skepticism is usually the sign of an open mind; faith is the sign of a closed mind. Certainly, if there were ever any actual evidence, I would believe in the existence of these "goblins" (just like I would believe in Santa or Bigfoot if there were ever any actual evidence of them).

Skepticism is the critical first step in this field, and personal experience (experiment) is the next one thousand steps. One without the other is worthless. Premature conclusions are worthless, and Erwin is attempting to postulate a school of Thelema based upon premature conclusions.

"Los" wrote:

Textual evidence taken from such books is not "overwhelming," it is incomplete in that it lacks sufficient personal experience with that system in its entirety to be well informed.

But the very thing we're discussing is what Crowley actually wrote. The only experience you need to discuss this topic is the experience of reading Crowley's books.

Nonsense. Crowley never said any such thing and would laugh you out of the room at the very thought. Crowley wrote "by doing certain things,,," not "by reading certain things..." Do you seriously not know the difference? Personal experience is quite literally everything, and extends far beyond reading.

"Los" wrote:
The system, as he presented it to the world, does not seem to involve contact with external entities -- in fact, Crowley appears to go out of his way to specify that the system is about getting in touch with a part of the self.

I see that we may be really quite close to agreement, after all. But you are a recovering Catholic, and I have taken this into account. It is quite important for you to vehemently debunk the lies that you were surrounded with as a child. (The fact that you casually dismiss their impact on you is mere denial.) As for me, I have no such compelling agenda, and no particular interest in "external entities," one way or another. But, Aleister Crowley did have such an interest, probably for reasons similar to your own, his childhood ordeal with old aeon religion. The compulsion to prove the existence of "external entities" is just as imbalanced as the compulsion to debunk it. Lack of interest is an indication of balance, IMO. I do not see "external entities" as relevant to the worldview of Thelema. In fact, I do not any phenomena as "external" to my own interplay of Had with Nu, within with without, self with not-self.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/03/2009 7:01 pm  

Maybe Erwin is right 😈

I don't think personal experience in magick and/or mysticism necessarily equals personal experience with Thelemic principles. I would guess that very few those of interested in some aspect of Crowley's work would be up for the rigorous training of magick and yoga. And there's no reason they should be pushed into it if it's obviously not their cup of tea. As Erwin's signal points out, amongst roaring din of much noise, the average person can discover their True Will, unite with their True Self, derive much of practical value from Crowley's legacy without going anywhere near the occult.

I suspect Erwin has much experience in his area, just little experience with ritual magick or mysticism. He doesn't need it to do his Will.

My point ( and possibly Erwin's ) being, it's not necessary to delve into the more esoteric aspects of Crowley's work to live a rich and rewarding Thelemic life.


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 461
25/03/2009 7:07 pm  
"zardoz" wrote:
Maybe Erwin is right 😈

I don't think personal experience in magick and/or mysticism necessarily equals personal experience with Thelemic principles. I would guess that very few those of interested in some aspect of Crowley's work would be up for the rigorous training of magick and yoga. And there's no reason they should be pushed into it if it's obviously not their cup of tea. As Erwin's signal points out, amongst roaring din of much noise, the average person can discover their True Will, unite with their True Self, derive much of practical value from Crowley's legacy without going anywhere near the occult.

I suspect Erwin has much experience in his area, just little experience with ritual magick or mysticism. He doesn't need it to do his Will.

My point ( and possibly Erwin's ) being, it's not necessary to delve into the more esoteric aspects of Crowley's work to live a rich and rewarding Thelemic life.

"All you have to do is to be yourself, to do your will, and to rejoice." - the Law of Liberty.

I dont see any mention of esotericism in there.

IAO131


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/03/2009 7:30 pm  
"zardoz" wrote:
Maybe Erwin is right 😈

I don't think personal experience in magick and/or mysticism necessarily equals personal experience with Thelemic principles. I would guess that very few those of interested in some aspect of Crowley's work would be up for the rigorous training of magick and yoga. And there's no reason they should be pushed into it if it's obviously not their cup of tea. As Erwin's signal points out, amongst roaring din of much noise, the average person can discover their True Will, unite with their True Self, derive much of practical value from Crowley's legacy without going anywhere near the occult.

I suspect Erwin has much experience in his area, just little experience with ritual magick or mysticism. He doesn't need it to do his Will.

My point ( and possibly Erwin's ) being, it's not necessary to delve into the more esoteric aspects of Crowley's work to live a rich and rewarding Thelemic life.

I agree, absolutely, and so did Crowley in the end. The vast majority need not indulge in the esoteric at all, and would be wrong to do so in contradiction to their natural aptitude for it. The esoteric is easily subject to abuse and distraction.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/03/2009 7:41 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
I see that we may be really quite close to agreement, after all. But you are a recovering Catholic, and I have taken this into account. It is quite important for you to vehemently debunk the lies that you were surrounded with as a child. (The fact that you casually dismiss their impact on you is mere denial.) As for me, I have no such compelling agenda, and no particular interest in "external entities," one way or another. But, Aleister Crowley did have such an interest, probably for reasons similar to your own, his childhood ordeal with old aeon religion. The compulsion to prove the existence of "external entities" is just as imbalanced as the compulsion to debunk it. Lack of interest is an indication of balance, IMO.

I should add to this, Los, that I share your interest in ridding the world of the influence any and all enemies of Liberty, of Freedom and Independence on all levels. I am quite the Thelemic activist, in fact, but when I see character pathology in a spokesman for any cause, even a good one, I become suspicious. I am not referring to you now, by the way.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/03/2009 8:14 pm  
"zardoz" wrote:
I suspect Erwin has much experience in his area, just little experience with ritual magick or mysticism. He doesn't need it to do his Will.

Unless, of course, it is his Will to address those whose Will is magick or mysticism, in which case he would require more experience with those practices.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2195
25/03/2009 9:53 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
However, I consider it perfectly feasible that what I call "I" may be a part of a greater whole of which "I" function independently, for all practical purposes, and vise versa.

If I understand you correctly, I think we're more or less in agreement on this point, though I prefer to say simply, "There is no self." After all, let's not confound the space marks. Whenever people start talking about "the whole" or "we are all one," I get wary.

But even if we grant that there is ultimately nothing "external" -- the thing that we are having a discussion about is what exists in the (apparently) external world around us.

I'm imagining a leprechaun right now, and I'm also sitting on a chair. I suppose, in a sense, you could say that the leprechaun and the chair are both "parts of me" (or that "I" am "parts of them") -- but for all practical purposes, we all know very well that the image in my head isn't "real" and "external" in the same way that the chair is.

That's what the discussion is about -- so we can skip the Enlightened Solipscism and actually get to the issue at hand.

"Camlion" wrote:
No, dear boy, COMMON EXPERIENCE is what gives us an ability to understand this particular subject and explain it clearly to others. I cannot explain this sort of thing to you by virtue of my own experience until you have acquired common experience for yourself.

This approach wouldn't fly when discussing any other subject. If we were talking about vacuuming, for example, and I claimed to have experience vacuuming, it would be reasonable for others to expect me to be able to have a discussion about the theory and practice of vacuuming, including the ability to give a decent explanation as to how it works.

My audience need not have any experience in vacuuming for me to explain the theory and practice very clearly in simple terms.

Now, if I were to say, "I cannot explain vacuuming to you by virtue of my experience until you have acquired common experience," I would be completely evading the issue of having to explain it. On top of that, it would be impossible for someone else to distinguish me from someone who has never vacuumed or from someone who has been vacuuming incorrectly.

"Los" wrote:
But the very thing we're discussing is what Crowley actually wrote. The only experience you need to discuss this topic is the experience of reading Crowley's books.
"Camlion" wrote:
Nonsense. Crowley never said any such thing and would laugh you out of the room at the very thought. Crowley wrote "by doing certain things,,," not "by reading certain things..." Do you seriously not know the difference? Personal experience is quite literally everything, and extends far beyond reading.

I think you're misunderstanding. If you read my quote carefully, you'll see that I'm saying that our discussing is about what Crowley actually wrote. Discussing what someone wrote is a question of what is on the page, not about what is in the world around us (or even in "experience").

For example, we could have a discussion about what Stephen Jay Gould had to say about punctuated equilibrium. To do so, we wouldn't need to have the experience of researching fossils or DNA -- because our discussion would not be about whether punctuated equilibrium exists in the world around us -- the only thing relevant to that discussion would be what Gould had to say.

So that's what we're doing with Crowley. And for the vast majority of his career, he seemed to teach a system that involved nothing more (and nothing less) than discovering a part of yourself (not contacting external beings). Does anyone have any (textual) evidece to the contrary?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/03/2009 10:13 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
No, dear boy, COMMON EXPERIENCE is what gives us an ability to understand this particular subject and explain it clearly to others. I cannot explain this sort of thing to you by virtue of my own experience until you have acquired common experience for yourself.

This approach wouldn't fly when discussing any other subject. If we were talking about vacuuming, for example, and I claimed to have experience vacuuming, it would be reasonable for others to expect me to be able to have a discussion about the theory and practice of vacuuming, including the ability to give a decent explanation as to how it works.

My audience need not have any experience in vacuuming for me to explain the theory and practice very clearly in simple terms.

Now, if I were to say, "I cannot explain vacuuming to you by virtue of my experience until you have acquired common experience," I would be completely evading the issue of having to explain it. On top of that, it would be impossible for someone else to distinguish me from someone who has never vacuumed or from someone who has been vacuuming incorrectly.

Vacuuming is a very poor analogy to magick and mysticism, having sex is a much better one. I cannot discuss it productively you until we have both had the experience. An overview of the mechanics involved will not convey an understanding of sex to you, only experience will do that.

I'm sorry, but things are not always as cut and dried as we would like. Life would be much more convenient if they were, but that is plainly not the case.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
26/03/2009 8:49 am  
"Los" wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding. If you read my quote carefully, you'll see that I'm saying that our discussing is about what Crowley actually wrote. Discussing what someone wrote is a question of what is on the page, not about what is in the world around us (or even in "experience").

This starting to sound like a broken record. The very concept of initiation means the same thing can hold levels of meaning, depending on one's grade, experience and understanding.

A few examples:

dwarf-soul = HGA; what does "dwarf-soul" tell you?
heart girt with a serpent; what does "serpent" tell you?

etc and so forth.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/08/2009 4:36 pm  

Crowley may not have created the text but it was he that made the physical link by committing those words to paper. Who is the author then, the person that does the work or the force that might be behind that person?


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 319
02/08/2009 6:44 pm  

"Crowley may not have created the text but it was he that made the physical link by committing those words to paper. Who is the author then, the person that does the work or the force that might be behind that person?"

As I've stated before, the Scarlet Woman was the one who made the link with Aiwass before the Beast ever did. Without Rose Kelly, there would have been no Book of the Law at all. She was receiving messages from this Being and Crowley really wanted nothing to do with. Add to this the fact that the verses themselves, many of which made no sense at all to the scribe who wrote them, were found a score of years later to contain such extraordinary meaning, and you have some evidence of a manifestation of praeterhuman Genius. And I believe that time and research will bear this out even more.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 319
02/08/2009 6:48 pm  

I should add that there is a will that is contrary to the pristine will (albeit only by accident): the "ill will" of II:8-13.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 319
02/08/2009 6:52 pm  

I added the last note to the wrong thread...it was meant for the "Has anyone found the True Will" thread, sorry...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/08/2009 9:03 pm  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
"Crowley may not have created the text but it was he that made the physical link by committing those words to paper. Who is the author then, the person that does the work or the force that might be behind that person?"

As I've stated before, the Scarlet Woman was the one who made the link with Aiwass before the Beast ever did. Without Rose Kelly, there would have been no Book of the Law at all. She was receiving messages from this Being and Crowley really wanted nothing to do with. Add to this the fact that the verses themselves, many of which made no sense at all to the scribe who wrote them, were found a score of years later to contain such extraordinary meaning, and you have some evidence of a manifestation of praeterhuman Genius. And I believe that time and research will bear this out even more.

Time and research will tell us what we already know? regardless of the exact mechanism of how liber al came into form, the fact is that it did. Dont you think that if this book was heralding a new aeon that another mouthpiece wouldn't have been found. Would such a massive concept be dependent upon one person being in the right place. Personally I think not and it is entirely irrelevant. Argue not!!


ReplyQuote
Page 25 / 25
Share: